^
My point of reference is two speakers in an acoustically treated control room. This is where the original is created. If your point of reference is reality then I think you're using the wrong tool.
Here I justed wanted to show that flat bass in an acoustically small room can be achieved very easily. I was under the impression that you don't believe it would be possible:
By the way, the same near field technique can be used to create stereo bass.
My point of reference is two speakers in an acoustically treated control room. This is where the original is created. If your point of reference is reality then I think you're using the wrong tool.
Here I justed wanted to show that flat bass in an acoustically small room can be achieved very easily. I was under the impression that you don't believe it would be possible:
By the way, the same near field technique can be used to create stereo bass.
Last edited:
Ummm... I don't know what to say.
If you mean that by listening inches from a driver that you can get an effectively anechoic and possibly "flat" response, and call that "in a room" I guess so. I am still not convinced that you can get a response as flat as the one you presented in a room except in one location. As I asked you, "how does it measure 5ft left or right"? (actually I said "away")
If by the "original" you refer to a multi track mono recording that is then assigned and pan-potted left and right, I would not refer to that as the "original". Except to the extent that it is the original mix.
It is entirely possible to take a simple recorder and record two channels in stereo. A variety of microphone techniques could be employed. That is more like an "original" where the sound stage consists of more than just the amplitude variation made in a mix.
My feeling is that you ought to be able to reproduce both in your control room.
So, what tool would you suggest that I use, if not a stereo speaker system?
_-_-bear
If you mean that by listening inches from a driver that you can get an effectively anechoic and possibly "flat" response, and call that "in a room" I guess so. I am still not convinced that you can get a response as flat as the one you presented in a room except in one location. As I asked you, "how does it measure 5ft left or right"? (actually I said "away")
If by the "original" you refer to a multi track mono recording that is then assigned and pan-potted left and right, I would not refer to that as the "original". Except to the extent that it is the original mix.
It is entirely possible to take a simple recorder and record two channels in stereo. A variety of microphone techniques could be employed. That is more like an "original" where the sound stage consists of more than just the amplitude variation made in a mix.
My feeling is that you ought to be able to reproduce both in your control room.
So, what tool would you suggest that I use, if not a stereo speaker system?
_-_-bear
5ft migth be doable with a DBA. Near field sub can be made to work for 2 seats: Comparison of different near field and far field subwoofer configurations
Here's the deviation of left and right ear from the center (green) of my single sub near field setup - note the vertical scale:
By the way, here's data of a damped SBA:
FoLLgoTT's build: 18 x Peerless XXLS12 - Page 2
Convinced?
So, what tool would you suggest that I use, if not a stereo speaker system?
_-_-bear
Binaural recordings. Stereo just can't do it.
Sure, everybody had a moment when something coming from his stereo sounded so real that he couldn't believe it. But those moments are rather scarce. Most of the time a stereo system doesn't sound real. It sounds, well, like stereo. Yet people chase that memory and think it would be the normal mode of operation of stereo. It is not.
Attachments
Last edited:
Well, if you listen to audio professionals then you'll find a lot of agreement with what I've said. Even Blumlein and the Bell guys themselves knew about the issues with stereo. Much has been written about those issues by people like Warncke, de Boer, Leakey, Mertens, Franssen, Bauer, Wendt, Lipshitz, Pulkki.
It's just the audiophool type of consumer mislead by decades of snake oil marketing that still believes in fairy tales.
I think (and this is thinking based on experience) that you sell "stereo" a bit short, and that most of the "doesn't sound real" problem remains in the speakers . . . most particularly their frequency response and the inability of small boxes to match on-axis and power (room) response in the typical listening room. No recording is going to sound "real" if you get the radiation pattern wrong at the end of the chain.
My experience with two-channel (stereo) recordings made with simple microphone technique (and not messed with in the control room to make them "sound good" on small monitors) is that, when reproduced on good loudspeakers that do not have the problem mentioned above, "stereo" can, and will, sound "real" more often than not. I'll grant that commercial recordings played through the typical box loudspeaker rarely sounds "real" . . . but I think you're ignoring the real cause of that, which is the speakers and the "mix" tailored to those speakers. That's not the fault of "stereo" so much as it is the fault of it rarely being done right . . .
It depends, of course, on the room, and the specified listening area within that room. There is no "one size fits all". Significantly important in any case is that it be consistent over the operating range of the loudspeaker (excepting, in small rooms anyway, the "non-directional" low bass, ie. in the room's modal region).
For a general understanding of the importance of pattern control you might want to read "Sound Systems: Design and Optimization" by Bob McCarthy. Although the book is directed primarily at the production environment the principles (and techniques) apply to small-room (where managing reflections is critical) reproduction as well.
Stereos ability to exactly recreate an acoustic venue in a small room is limited. Its ability to act as a sound medium whose pallet is two channels is perfect. Let's not forget that recreating an existing venue is a very small portion of the mediums commercial extent.
My opinions of he ideal radiation pattern are well known.
My opinions of he ideal radiation pattern are well known.
I agree. Nevertheless the perceptual aspects of stereo really aren't well explored. Stereo could be better and deliver way more consistent results if there only were stricter production standards.
You asked "What is the "right" radiation pattern?". That question is incomplete, and unanswerable, unless you specify the room and listening area (and even then there may be more than one "right" answer).dewardh, not exactly what I've asked
Now we're talking. How does the radiation pattern need to complement the room? What specific acoustical room parameters would allow you to decide the right speaker radiation pattern?
Halleluiah to that! There was a guy over the other day who didn't understand why the sound on movies was always so good. I told him that was because motion picture mixing studios all have to abide by a standard. CD's can be mixed on a IPhone (and some probably are). CD mixing has no standards.
And even the standards of the movie industry aren't as strict as they should be. It's really a mystery to me how the music industry never managed to agree on a reference level. Maybe now that ReplayGain has become a standard things will improve.
McCarthy already wrote that book . . . see above. Even distilled down to just the small-room essentials it would be too much (apart from the blatantly obvious) to reproduce here. On-axis response at a single point (or across a reasonably defined "listening area") is easy . . . so it's (obviously) all about using pattern control to manage reflections. Duh . . .
And reflections depend on the room. Until you specify that there is no answer.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.